Robert A. Ballance
Susan L. Graham
Michael L. Van De Vanter
Abstract
Powerful editing systems for developing complex software documents are difficult to engineer. Besides requiring efficient incremental algorithms and complex data structures, such editors must accommodate flexible editing styles, provide a consistent, coherent, and powerful user interface, support individual variations and projectwide configurations, maintain a sharable database of information concerning the documents being edited, and integrate smoothly with the other tools in the environment. Pan is a language-based editing and browsing system that exhibits these characteristics. This paper surveys the design and engineering of Pan, paying particular attention to a number of issues that pervade the system: incremental checking and analysis, information retention in the presence of change, tolerance for errors and anomalies, and extension facilities.
- 1 ACM. Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN SIGOA Symposium on Text Manipulation. SIGPLAN Not. (ACM) 16, 6 (June 1981).Google Scholar
- 2 AMBRAS, J., AND O'DAY, V. Microscope: A knowledge-based programming environment IEEE Softw. 5, 3 (May 1988), 50-58. Google Scholar
- 3 ATTALI, I. Compiling TYPOL with attribute grammars In Programming Languages Implementation and Logic Programmzng, P. Deransart, B. Lorho, and J. Maluszfiski, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 348. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988, pp. 252-272. Google Scholar
- 4 BAECKER, R. M, AND MARCUS, A. Human Factors and Typography for More Readable Programs. ACM Press, New York, 1990 Google Scholar
- 5 BA~LKE, R., AND SNELTIN~, G. The PSG system: From formal language definitions to interactive programming environments ACM Trans. Program Lang. Syst 8, 4 (Oct 1986), 547-576. Google Scholar
- 6 BALLANCE, R. A. Syntactic and semantic checking in language-based editing systems. Ph D. dissertation, Computer Science Division--EECS, Univ of Cahfornia, Berkeley, Dec. 1989. (Available as Tech. Rep. UCB/CSD 89/548.) Google Scholar
- 7 BALLANCE, R. A., AND GRAHAM, S I~. Incremental consistency maintenance for interactive applicatlons. In Procee&ngs of the 8th Internatmual Conference on Logic Programming, K Furukawa. Ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1991, pp 895-909.Google Scholar
- 8 BALLANCE, R A., BUTCHER, J., AND GRAHAM, S.L. Grammatical abstraction and incremental syntax analyms in a language-based editor In Proceedings of the SIGPLAN 88 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. SIGPLAN Not. (ACM) 23, 7 (July 1988), 185-198. Google Scholar
- 9 BALLANCE, R. A., VAN DE VANTER, M. L., AND GRAHAM, S. L. The architecture of Pan I. Tech. Rep. UCB/CSD 88/409, Computer Science Division--EECS, Univ. of California, Berkely, Mar. 1988. Google Scholar
- 10 BORRAS, P., CLEMENT, D., DESPI~YROUX, T., INCERPI, J., KAHN, G., LANG, B., AND PASCUAL, V CENTAUR: The system. In {27}, pp. 14-24. Google Scholar
- 11 BUDINSKY, F. J., HOLT, R. C., AND ZAKY, S. G. SRE--A syntax-recognizing editor. Softw. Pract. Exper. 15, 5 (May 1985), 489-497.Google Scholar
- 12 BUTCHER, J. Ladle. Master's thesis, Computer Science Division--EECS, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Nov. 1989. (Available as Tech. Rep. UCB/CSD 89/519:) Google Scholar
- 13 CnEN, P., AND HARRISON, M.A. Multiple representation document development. Computer 21, 1 (Jan. 1988), 15-31. Google Scholar
- 14 CHEN, P., COKER, J., HARRISON, M. A., MCCARRELL, J., AND PROCTER, S. The VORTEX document preparation environment. In Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on TEX for Scientific Documentation, J. Desarm~nien, Ed., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 236. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986, pp. 45-54. Google Scholar
- 15 COHEN, J. Constraint logic programming languages. Commun. ACM 33, 7 (July 1990), 52-68. Google Scholar
- 16 CONRADI, R., DIDRIKSEN, W. M., AND WANVIK, D., EDS. Advanced Programming Environments. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 244. Springer-Verlag. New York, 1986. Google Scholar
- 17 CORBETT, n.P. Static semantics and compiler error recovery. Ph.D. dissertation, Computer Science Division--EECS, Univ. of California, Berkeley, June 1985. (Available as Tech. Rep. UCB/CSD 85,/251.) Google Scholar
- 18 DERANSART, P., JOURDAN, M., AND LORHO, B. Attribute Grammars: Definitions, Systems, and Bibliography. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 323. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988. Google Scholar
- 19 DESPEYROUX, T. Executable specification of static semantics. In Semantics of Data Types, G. Kahn, D. B. MacQueen, and G. D. Plotkin, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 173. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1984, pp. 215-233.Google Scholar
- 20 DONZEAU-GOUGE, V., HUET, G., KAHN, G., AND LANG, B. Programming environments based on structured editors: The MENTOR experience. In Interactive Programming Environments, D. R. Barstow, H. E. Shrobe, and E. Sandewall, Eds. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1984, pp. 128-140.Google Scholar
- 21 DOWNS, L. M., AND VAN DE VANTER, M.L. Pan I version 4.0: An introduction for users. Tech. Rep. UCB/CSD 91/659, Computer Science Division--EECS, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Nov. 1991. Google Scholar
- 22 DOYLE, J. A truth maintenance system. In Readings in Artificial Intelligence, B. L. Webber and N. J. Nilsson, Eds. Tioga, Palo Alto, Calif., 1981, pp. 496-516.Google Scholar
- 23 FORSTALL, B.T. Experience with language description mechanisms in Pan. Master's thesis, Computer Science Division--EECS, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Nov. 1991.Google Scholar
- 24 GARLAN, D. Flexible unparsing in a structure editing environment. Tech. Rep. CMU-CS-85- 129, Dept. of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, Pa., Apr. 1985.Google Scholar
- 25 GOLDBERG, A. Programmer as reader. IEEE Softw. 4, 5 (Sept. 1987), 62-70.Google Scholar
- 26 H&BERMANN, A. N., AND NOTKIN, D. Gandalf: Software development environments. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-12, 12 (Dec. 1986), 1117-1127. Google Scholar
- 27 HENDERSON, P., ED. ACM SIGSOFT 88: 3rd Symposium on Software Development Environments (Boston, Nov. 28-30, 1988). ACM, New York, 1988. Google Scholar
- 28 HILFINGER, P. N., AND COLELLA, P. Fidil: A language for scientific programming. In Symbolic Computatmn: Apphcations to Scientific Computing, R. Grossman, Ed. SIAM, Philadelphia, Pa., 1989, pp. 97-138.Google Scholar
- 29 HOLT, R. W., BOEHM-DAvIS, D. A., AND SCHULTZ, A.C. Mental representations of programs for student and professional programmers. In Empirical Studies of Programmers: Second Workshop, G. M. Olson, S. Sheppard, and E. Soloway, Eds. Ablex, Norwood, N.J., 1987, p, 33. Google Scholar
- 30 HOOVER, R., AND TEITELBAUM, T. Efficient incremental evaluation of aggregate values in attribute grammars. In Proceedings of the SIGPLAN 86 Symposium on Compiler Construction. SIGPLAN Not. (ACM) 21, 7 (July 1986), 39-50. Google Scholar
- 31 HORTON, M.R. Demgn of a multi-language editor with static error detection capabilities. Ph.D dissertation, Computer Science Divlsion--EECS, Univ. of Califorma, Berkeley, 1981. Google Scholar
- 32 Ho~wiTz, S., AND TEITELBAUM, T Generating editing environments based on relations and attributes. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 8, 4 (Oct. 1986), 577-608. Google Scholar
- 33 JALmI, F., AND GALLIER, J H. Bmlding friendly parsers. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (Albuquerque, N.M , Jan. 25-27). ACM, New York, 1982, pp. 196-206. Google Scholar
- 34 KAHN, G. Natural semantics. Tech. Rap. 601, INRIA, Feb. 1987.Google Scholar
- 35 KAHN, G., LANG, B., MI~LI~SE, B., AND MORCOS, E Metal: A formalism to specify formalisms Sci. Comput. Program. 3, 2 (Aug 1983), 151-188.Google Scholar
- 36 KAISER, G.E. Semantics for structure editing environments. Ph.D. dmsertation, Dept. of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, Pa., May 1985. Google Scholar
- 37 KmsLIS, P. A C. The SAGA editor: A language-oriented editor based on an incremental LR(1) parser. Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Computer Science, Umv. of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, Dec. 1985.Google Scholar
- 38 KNUTH, D.E. Literate programming Computer J. 27, 2 (May 1984), 97-111. Google Scholar
- 39 LAMPSON, B.W. Bravo Users Manual. Palo Alto, 1978.Google Scholar
- 40 LANG, B. On the usefulness of syntax directed editors. In {t6}, pp 47-51. Google Scholar
- 41 LETOVSKY, S. Cognitive processes in program comprehension In Empirical Studies of Programmers, E. Soloway and S. Iyengar, Eds. Ablex, Norwood, N J., 1986, pp. 58-79 Google Scholar
- 42 LETOVSKY, S., AND SOLOWAY, E. Delocalized plans and program comprehension. IEEE Soflw. 3, 3 (May 1986), 41-49Google Scholar
- 43 LEwIs, C., AND NORMAN, D.A. Demgning for error. In User Centered System Design: New Perspectwes on Human-Computer Interaction, D. A. Norman and S. W. Draper, Eds. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N J., 1986, pp. 411-432.Google Scholar
- 44 MASINTER, L. M. Global program analysis in an interactive environment. Tech Rep. SSL-80-1, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, Calif., 1980.Google Scholar
- 45 MEDINA-MORA, R., AND FEILER, P. H. An incremental programming environment IEEE Trans. Soflw. Eng. SE-7, 5 (Sept. 1981), 472-481.Google Scholar
- 46 NEAL, L.R. Human factors m computing systems and graphical interfaces. In CHI + GI 1987 Conference Proceedings (Toronto, Apr. 5-9, 1987). ACM, New York, 1987, pp. 99-102. Google Scholar
- 47 NORD, R. L., AND PFENNING, F. The Ergo attribute system. In {27}, pp. 110-120 Google Scholar
- 48 OMAN, P., AND COOK, C.R. Typographic style ~s more than cosmetic. Commun. ACM 33, 5 (May 1990), 506-520 Google Scholar
- 49 PLOTK~N, G D. A structural approach to operational semantics Tech. Rep. DAIMI FN-19, Computer Science Dept., Aarhus Univ., Aarhus, Denmark, Sept. 1981.Google Scholar
- 50 PRAWITZ, D. Natural Deduction: A Proof-Theoretic Study. Almquist and Wlksell, Stockholm, 1965.Google Scholar
- 51 REIss, S.P. Graphical program development with PECAN program development system. In Proceedings of the A CM SIGSOFT/SIGPLAN Software Engineerzng Symposium on Practical Software Development Environments (Pittsburgh, Pa., Apr. 23-25, 1984). ACM, New York, 1984, pp. 30-41. Google Scholar
- 52 REPS, T., AND TEITELBAUM, T. The Synthesizer Generator Reference Manual, Second Edition. Dept. of Computer Science, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y., 1987. Google Scholar
- 53 REPS, T, TEITELBAUM, T., AND DEMERS, A Incremental context dependent analysis for language based editors ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 5, 3 (July 1983), 449-477. Google Scholar
- 54 RICH, C., AND WATERS, R.C. The programmers apprentice: A research overview Computer 21, 11 (Nov. 1988), 10-25. Google Scholar
- 55 SMITH, B., AND KELLEHER, G., EDS. Reason Maintenance Systems and Their Applications Series in Artificial Intelligence. Ellis Norwood, Chichester, 1988. Google Scholar
- 56 SOLOWAY, E., AND EHRLICH, K. Empirical studies of programming knowledge. IEEE Trans. Soflw. Eng. SE-10, 5 (Sept. 1984), 595-609.Google Scholar
- 57 STALLMAN, R. M EMACS: The extensibte, customizable, self-documenting display editor.Google Scholar
- 58 STEELE, G. L., JR., AND S~JSSMAN, G.J. Constraints. AI Memo 502, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge, Mass., Nov. 1978.Google Scholar
- 59 STERLING, L., AND SHAPIRO, E. The Art of Prolog: Advanced Programming Techniques. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1986. Google Scholar
- 60 STROMFORS, O. Editing large programs using a structure-oriented text editor. In {16}, pp. 39-46. Google Scholar
- 61 TEITELBAUM, T., AND REPS, T. The Cornell program synthesizer: A syntax-directed programming environment. Commun. ACM 24, 9 (Sept. 1981), 563-573. Google Scholar
- 62 TEITELBAUM, T., REPS, T., AND HORWITZ, S. The why and wherefore of the Cornell program synthesizer. In {1}, pp. 8-16. Google Scholar
- 63 TEITELMAN, W. A tour through Cedar. IEEE Trans. Soflw. Eng. SE-11, 3 (Mar. 1985). Google Scholar
- 64 VAN DE VANTER, M.L. Error management and debugging in Pan I. Tech. Rep. UCB/CSD 89/554, Computer Science Division--EECS, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Dec. 1989. Google Scholar
- 65 VAN DE VANTER, M. L. User interface design for language-based editing systems. Ph.D. dissertation, Computer Science Division--EECS, Univ. of California, Berkeley. To be published.Google Scholar
- 66 VAN DE VANTER, M. L., BALLANCE, R. A., AND GRAHAM, S.L. Coherent user interfaces for language-based editing systems. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. (1992). To appear. Google Scholar
- 67 WATERS, R. C. Program editors should not abandon text oriented commands. SIGPLAN Not. (ACM) 17, 7 (July 1982), 39-46. Google Scholar
- 68 WINOGRAD, T. Beyond programming languages. Commun. ACM22, 7 (July 1979), 391-401. Google Scholar
- 69 WOOD, S.R. Z--The 95% program editor. In {1}, pp. 1-7. Google Scholar
Index Terms
- The Pan language-based editing system
Recommendations
Cedalion: a language for language oriented programming
OOPSLA '11Language Oriented Programming (LOP) is a paradigm that puts domain specific programming languages (DSLs) at the center of the software development process. Currently, there are three main approaches to LOP: (1) the use of internal DSLs, implemented as ...
Cedalion: a language for language oriented programming
OOPSLA '11: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM international conference on Object oriented programming systems languages and applicationsLanguage Oriented Programming (LOP) is a paradigm that puts domain specific programming languages (DSLs) at the center of the software development process. Currently, there are three main approaches to LOP: (1) the use of internal DSLs, implemented as ...
Reviews
Paul W. Abrahams
An editor is a programmer's most vital tool. Programmers have strong feelings about the editors they use and are sensitive to the quality of those editors. The Pan editor is designed for experienced programmers—software professionals proficient with their primary tools, intimately familiar with their programming languages, and skilled at creating programs in those languages. Judging by the description in this paper, Pan ought to be a programmer's delight. Pan is a syntax-recognizing editor—it combines the freedom and flexibility of a purely textual editor with the contextual awareness of a syntax-directed editor. Its linguistic knowledge is derived from a collection of language descriptions that include both syntactic and semantic information, so it is not inherently limited to a particular language. It can perform syntactic analysis even when the program text is syntactically ill-formed; it views such a program as merely a variant of a correct program, treating the variance as no more important than a spelling error and maintaining a syntactic view of those parts of the document that are not affected by the variance. It provides many of the same key bindings and text services as Emacs, including generalized undo, kill rings, text filling, customization, extension, and self-documentation. Even at the textual level, it has advantages over Emacs; for instance, it provides visual highlighting of selected regions. Lexical and syntactic analysis is handled by the Ladle (Language Description Language) component of Pan, while the checking of contextual semantic constraints is handled by the Colander (Constraint Language and Interpreter) component. Both components have two parts: an online part that is part of the editor itself and an offline part that generates the tables needed by the online part. An editing interface coordinates the analysis and makes derived information accessible to users and client programs. Ladle represents a language grammar as an abstract syntax augmented by additional productions that make it possible to derive the concrete syntax from the abstract syntax. The two syntaxes are related by grammatical abstraction, which ensures that a straightforward and reversible transformation exists between them. Grammatical abstraction is purely structural; it does not use semantic information to identify corresponding structures. Colander is based on the notion of logical constraint grammars, expressed in a Prolog-like language. Using the abstract syntax as a base, Colander provides for annotating production with goals (logical propositions) that must be satisfied if the document is semantically correct. An incremental evaluator monitors changes to the document and the derived information in Colander's database in order to maintain consistency between them. Users typically understand document structure in terms of structural components rather than syntax trees, naming those components using the specific terminology of the document's language. Pan therefore uses operand classes to designate kinds of document components. An operand class is an arbitrary collection of document components; operand classes may overlap. Operand classes define the textual units used for structure-oriented selection, navigation, highlighting, and editing. Expression and Statement are examples of language-specific operand classes. Examples of language-independent operand classes are Syntactic Error and Query Result . Text-oriented and structure-oriented operations combine naturally; for instance, you can move to the next expression and then make arbitrary textual changes to that expression. Despite my favorable impression of Pan, I did not find this paper easy reading. The description of Colander and its constraint grammars, which relies on a knowledge of Prolog, is particularly impenetrable; although I got the general idea of what was going on, I could not make sense of the details. Some of my difficulty was caused by the use of unexplained notations that are not standard Prolog. It is too bad that the authors were not more careful about defining their terminology and notation, since the content of the paper is so clearly worthwhile.
Access critical reviews of Computing literature here
Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.
Comments